Indy5 wrote:classb, I see where your coming from with all the factors. I'm saying pay each player the same. Establish a "cost of living" meter and pay that. I just feel a lot of these kids that come from poor families still really struggle. The education is great and they might be the first ones to get to go to college, but that still doesn't help them live while they are there. They need SOME money and if their families can't help and they can't have jobs, I don't see where it'll come from.

yep, I agree, you'd have to pay everyone the same regardless of sport, or conference. The SEC, Pac 12, etc...would outspend the other smaller conf's in order to get the best athletes. It would be a HUGE recruiting tool, and believe me, they would use the difference in pay to pull players. The playing field would have to be level. The checks could be distributed by the conf office and take the schools out of it completely. Some have suggested it would open a Pandora's box....by paying them? Does anyone think keeping them broke, and unable to have a job somehow "removes" the temptation from taking extra benefits from rich boosters? If anything, it increases the cheating.

Indy5 wrote:classb, I see where your coming from with all the factors. I'm saying pay each player the same. Establish a "cost of living" meter and pay that. I just feel a lot of these kids that come from poor families still really struggle. The education is great and they might be the first ones to get to go to college, but that still doesn't help them live while they are there. They need SOME money and if their families can't help and they can't have jobs, I don't see where it'll come from.

To be very honest, there have been many smart people, talented musicians and singers, etc. that haven't been able to go to college because they can't afford it. If an athlete doesn't have enough money after their scholarship, then guess what, they shouldn't be in college. It's not a God given right to get a college education. If you cannot afford a new car, house, etc. you don't buy it. IMHO, the same should go for a college education.

Your argument would be valid if the people you named had all the same restrictions put on them that these college athletes have. Holding a kid back because he doesn't have money for laundry and because you don't want him paid enough to wear clean clothes (laundry is just one example) is nonsense. Would you rather hold them back and not see them have a shot at bettering themselves or be a possible burden on society later?No one is saying they should get big bucks....not that I've heard anyway. The midshipmen and cadets at Army, Navy, and Air Force get paid....and it doesn't seem to harm any of them. They get right around $900 a month and not all of that goes to having their dry cleaning done...they do have money left over. And at the academies, everything is provided...and Army, Navy and Air Force are ALL members of the NCAA as are their athletes.

Would it be possible for you to post where you found this information? Student-athletes do have some restrictions during the academic school year. However, if I am not mistaken, they are still allowed to earn up to $2000 per semester (or year?). There may be restrictions on this, as in working within the sports department, full or partial scholarship athletes and I am fairly sure it has to be approved before hand. I know there are some limitations but they are not "banned" from working for spending money. I don't believe there are any restrictions for summer employment short of using their "status" to earn a non-reasonable wage or to secure a job. Please show me something that says that they cannot have a job.

classB4ever wrote:Would it be possible for you to post where you found this information? Student-athletes do have some restrictions during the academic school year. However, if I am not mistaken, they are still allowed to earn up to $2000 per semester (or year?). There may be restrictions on this, as in working within the sports department, full or partial scholarship athletes and I am fairly sure it has to be approved before hand. I know there are some limitations but they are not "banned" from working for spending money. I don't believe there are any restrictions for summer employment short of using their "status" to earn a non-reasonable wage or to secure a job. Please show me something that says that they cannot have a job.

Summer employment is different, but they still have rules that they have to adhere to. For example, a QB at Oklahoma "worked" for a car dealership in Norman (owned by a BIG Sooner booster)...and he got paid whether he showed up or not. The school had to self report to the NCAA over it. The NCAA was going to take away wins, at first, but after Bob Stoops kicked the kid off the team, the NCAA reconsidered. I beleive what you're looking for is in the NCAA's rules etc.. There are lots of reasons scholarship athletes can't have jobs. Most would do something for their money, but just as many might "work" for a rich booster answering a phone that isn't connected to anything. Or washing a boosters car...for $50 an hour...which might take up to 4 hrs a day doing... There is always a way around the rules, which is why they can't have jobs. Again, summer employment is different, because it's not during the regular school year. Say you play football, and it's January and the season is over, I would say the athlete should be able to get a job..ah..but then spring ball is coming up.. I think those of us who think the athletes should get "something" aren't looking for them to make out like bandits...but have "some" money, since they make a heck of a lot for their schools.The other thing to consider is athletes today, workout all year round. And if not at an official practice etc...at a "captains voluntary workout. But those workouts aren't so "vuluntary"...don't show up and see what happens.

classB4ever wrote:Would it be possible for you to post where you found this information? Student-athletes do have some restrictions during the academic school year. However, if I am not mistaken, they are still allowed to earn up to $2000 per semester (or year?). There may be restrictions on this, as in working within the sports department, full or partial scholarship athletes and I am fairly sure it has to be approved before hand. I know there are some limitations but they are not "banned" from working for spending money. I don't believe there are any restrictions for summer employment short of using their "status" to earn a non-reasonable wage or to secure a job. Please show me something that says that they cannot have a job.

Summer employment is different, but they still have rules that they have to adhere to. For example, a QB at Oklahoma "worked" for a car dealership in Norman (owned by a BIG Sooner booster)...and he got paid whether he showed up or not. The school had to self report to the NCAA over it. The NCAA was going to take away wins, at first, but after Bob Stoops kicked the kid off the team, the NCAA reconsidered. I beleive what you're looking for is in the NCAA's rules etc.. There are lots of reasons scholarship athletes can't have jobs. Most would do something for their money, but just as many might "work" for a rich booster answering a phone that isn't connected to anything. Or washing a boosters car...for $50 an hour...which might take up to 4 hrs a day doing... There is always a way around the rules, which is why they can't have jobs. Again, summer employment is different, because it's not during the regular school year. Say you play football, and it's January and the season is over, I would say the athlete should be able to get a job..ah..but then spring ball is coming up.. I think those of us who think the athletes should get "something" aren't looking for them to make out like bandits...but have "some" money, since they make a heck of a lot for their schools.The other thing to consider is athletes today, workout all year round. And if not at an official practice etc...at a "captains voluntary workout. But those workouts aren't so "vuluntary"...don't show up and see what happens.

there are jobs where they aren't working for a booster you know. Plus a football player with a season that ends in January has at least 3-4 months and then after spring camp you have another 3 months to make extra money for whatever and you can workout around your job. I would also assume missing a voluntary workout because you were working could also be made up on their own.

classB4ever wrote:Please show me something that says that they cannot have a job.

+1, you sound like winner with slightly better grammar.

And to think, I typed it very s l o w to make sure it was read s l o w l y.

DL Satans wrote:Summer employment is different, but they still have rules that they have to adhere to. For example, a QB at Oklahoma "worked" for a car dealership in Norman (owned by a BIG Sooner booster)...and he got paid whether he showed up or not. The school had to self report to the NCAA over it. The NCAA was going to take away wins, at first, but after Bob Stoops kicked the kid off the team, the NCAA reconsidered. I beleive what you're looking for is in the NCAA's rules etc.. There are lots of reasons scholarship athletes can't have jobs. Most would do something for their money, but just as many might "work" for a rich booster answering a phone that isn't connected to anything. Or washing a boosters car...for $50 an hour...which might take up to 4 hrs a day doing... There is always a way around the rules, which is why they can't have jobs. Again, summer employment is different, because it's not during the regular school year. Say you play football, and it's January and the season is over, I would say the athlete should be able to get a job..ah..but then spring ball is coming up.. I think those of us who think the athletes should get "something" aren't looking for them to make out like bandits...but have "some" money, since they make a heck of a lot for their schools.The other thing to consider is athletes today, workout all year round. And if not at an official practice etc...at a "captains voluntary workout. But those workouts aren't so "vuluntary"...don't show up and see what happens.

1. Yes, I was asking for you to show what NCAA rule states a student/athlete cannot have a job. I don't believe there is such a thing. There are stipulations based on full or partial scholarship athletes. There are rules about working in the sports department. There are rules for during the academic school year vs. summer employment. 2. As for the example of the QB from Oklahoma, there is a rule that states they cannot use their "status or celebrity" to get a job and they must receive a "fair wage". Your example is precisely why the rules are in place. And trust me, it happens more then we know.3. Once again, these student/athletes are given a tremendous opportunity. If they don't have enough money, then get a job. Don't care if it's during the school year or not, there is enough time in their day to find something to supplement their scholarship if THEY WANT OR NEED TO.

Just some commentary based on my experience as a D1 athlete and why it is difficult but not impossible to work. You are looking at 24 hours in a day. Subtract 8 hours a day for sleep. Subtract an additonal 5 hours for practice/training. Subtract an additional 4 hours per day for going to class. Subtract an additional 1-2 hours per day for mandatory study sessions (depends on your team). This leaves an athlete with 5-6 hours daily to work. However, this does not include basic things like eating (about 1 hour per day) or mandatory icing and post workout stuff (about 1 hour per day, which is not spent with coaches so is not included in the cap). Looking at 3-4 hours maximum that can be worked daily. Then, on top of all of this, you are going to have homework, group projects, studying, etc.

And, on top of all of that, you can't use your status as an athlete to help you get a job. This means that a potential employer can not use your athlete status as a reason to allow you to work nonstandard hours, like 2-3 hours daily, so if they do not have a habit of doing that, the NCAA can deny you that job opportunity, but, let's say you are able to land a job working 2-3 hours per day, and you can't be paid more than normal, you're VERY lucky to take home $8 an hour after taxes, so you are maybe going to make $100 a week.

Living on $400 a month is almost impossible. And, on top of all of this, not all athletes have full rides, so they don't automatically get free books, meals, or rent.

~I have no patience for anyone who doubts me, none at all. My entire goal is to make them feel ashamed for writing me off.

balla45. At no point was it stated it would be easy. It isn't and shouldn't be. There may even be an old saying that states something like, "nothing in life worth having comes easy" and is very applicable here.

Didn't say it was easy or should be, just stating my own experiences. It is incredibly difficult, but not impossible.

On paying athletes, I think there are positives and negatives. The biggest negative being that small schools with smaller budgets will lose out on recruits do to a larger school being able to pay them more.

@Indy5, if you would only pay the athletes who make the school money, then you'd have to charge the athletes who lose the school money. The Final Four for basketball basically funds everything for every institution anyway.

~I have no patience for anyone who doubts me, none at all. My entire goal is to make them feel ashamed for writing me off.

And to think, I typed it very s l o w to make sure it was read s l o w l y.

not you, I was saying DL sounds like winner. He posts stuff and we're supposed to believe him because he thinks he's more knowledgeable on the subject than everyone else.

Nice, believe what you want or don't...my feelings aren't hurt either way. The thing a lot of you aren't taking into account is "jobs"....just because they want one, or even could work one, doesn't mean one is available. And who is going to employ even an athlete (other than a boster) for 6-8 weeks, for extremely limited hours when there are more students willing to work for much longer who don't have the demands an athlete does? And after the Cam/Ceil Newton thing, how a "booster" is defined has become much more liberal. Now if you don't believe this "winner" LOOK it up for yourself. The Newtons found a loophole in the NCAA's rules that has since been closed. But AGAIN....LOOK IT UP if you doubt it. Yeah, you sound like a real "winner" too Flip, you ask questions but don't look things up for yourself. I'm not here to spoon feed you or anyone. Good luck with that. Be Well.

balla45 wrote:Just some commentary based on my experience as a D1 athlete and why it is difficult but not impossible to work. You are looking at 24 hours in a day. Subtract 8 hours a day for sleep. Subtract an additonal 5 hours for practice/training. Subtract an additional 4 hours per day for going to class. Subtract an additional 1-2 hours per day for mandatory study sessions (depends on your team). This leaves an athlete with 5-6 hours daily to work. However, this does not include basic things like eating (about 1 hour per day) or mandatory icing and post workout stuff (about 1 hour per day, which is not spent with coaches so is not included in the cap). Looking at 3-4 hours maximum that can be worked daily. Then, on top of all of this, you are going to have homework, group projects, studying, etc.

And, on top of all of that, you can't use your status as an athlete to help you get a job. This means that a potential employer can not use your athlete status as a reason to allow you to work nonstandard hours, like 2-3 hours daily, so if they do not have a habit of doing that, the NCAA can deny you that job opportunity, but, let's say you are able to land a job working 2-3 hours per day, and you can't be paid more than normal, you're VERY lucky to take home $8 an hour after taxes, so you are maybe going to make $100 a week.

Living on $400 a month is almost impossible. And, on top of all of this, not all athletes have full rides, so they don't automatically get free books, meals, or rent.

THANK YOU...and THAT was EXACTLY what I was getting at......well said.

Flip wrote:DL Satans, I did look it up and not surprisingly you're wrong. NCAA athletes are allowed to have jobs, even during their season.

And good comebacks, they're about as good as winner's.

Thanks Flip, wish I could say the same. While technically you may be correct, as a practical matter I'd still say they can't, for all the reasons that have been given by other posters. How many starters at the D1 level do you suppose have jobs....during the season? Frankly, I don't think many coaches would want their scholarship athletes to have jobs, there is too much room for it to go sideways on them. But you just keep on with your snarky posts. If you find someone to be incorrect about something, their is no need to revert back to jr high but the fact that you did speaks volumes. Be Well.